My opinion of Peterson hasn't changed much since I was first introduced to him on the Sam Harris podcast. I'd like to be enlightened, but maybe I'm too far gone.

I think Peterson spouts simple truths to pull people in and then foster cynicism towards the actual plights of others and those who actually put in the work of building a better society. He doesn't actually propose solutions for the world, he just gives obvious advice and criticizes things that make him uncomfortable. Only movement from the left make him uncomfortable, though, and the alt-right either has no faults or doesn't deserve mention. Cynicism and self-righteousness are easy and lazy.

Adoptive parents are rightly held to a pretty high standard of conduct, and many gay couples don't meet that standard.

I assume that you would agree we should judge couples individually and not based on group statistics. For example, we wouldn't judge a minority couple based on the average income/education/criminality among their group. Those things shouldn't even come into play, so I don't see how it's relevant to mention here.

I guess I mean Western Buddhism but to be honest I'm not sure. There are versions of Buddhism that definitely seem magical. This might include literal reincarnation, mythology or legends about divine beings that are taken literally, and devotion to mythological characters rather than devotion to a practice and the way in which it can ease suffering. I'm not interested in those aspects.

The Buddhism that I appreciate sees the Buddha as a genius psychotherapist who was ahead of his time rather than a magical character we should worship. They point out that he gave very clear advice on achieving peace that is simple to practice and test to see if it's useful. They spend time teaching others how to explore their own mind and find peace with themselves and their surroundings. They generally avoid lists of good and evil, but instead offer advice on examining situations for yourself.

They would consider something like reincarnation to be a metaphor but often won't give a definite yes/no- you can see it however you like, it's beside the point. I know a little about ancient India and Hinduism, and I think the Buddha would have used the concept of reincarnation because it was prolific in the culture in which he taught. When he used it, he seems to try to bend people towards seeing every single moment as a figurative "rebirth". This is similar to OP mentioning that each moment is created, experienced, and destroyed by the Hindu characters.

I listen to Gil Fronsdale and other teachers on Audio Dharma occasionally. Last night I listened to his talk titled "On the Way to Unshakeable Faith". In that talk, his description of "faith" seems very different from what religions generally teach- certainly the faith that I grew up practicing.

As a non-theist who casually practices non-magical Buddhism, I've admired Hinduism for a while. I think it's a really good metaphor for the connectnedness of everything, and it's interesting for describing something like quantum weirdness when you let it be a metaphor.

God's Debris, by the author of Dilbert, describes a God who reminds me of hinduism. Out of boredom mostly, he explodes his infinite self into pieces which- since they all have part of him- will slowly re-combine themselves by evolving in that direction.

Alan Watts does a good job describing it as a drama with a single "Everything" playing all the parts of people and animals and everything else in nature.

Of course people will cling to statues and images, and of course they'll lose the point of the metaphor. Alan Watts used the analogy of someone pointing at the moon, and others admiring the pointing hand while losing sight of the actual moon. Humans are humans, whatcha gonna do?

On the other hand, though- and much broader than the environmental issue at hand- I can't shake this feeling that all Abrahamic religions and sects are complicit. If the book by itself, read in the most ignorant way, leads to terrible conclusions by millions of Christians then you'll have to explain how God created such a terrible means of communication and why he refuses to invent better ways.

Sure, they may be quieter but they vote. And they keep voting for politicians who pay lip service to their religion while badmouthing the science that indicates we're hurting our longterm chances of survival by destroying our environment. While actually dismantling steps the country has taken to clean up the environment.

I think this happens because they have a deep-rooted disdain for the planet. It's corrupt to them, so destroying it is a non-issue. It's theirs to use as they see fit and God will make it alright in the not-too-distant future.

They won't say this so clearly but it's not hard to read between the lines. Especially if you grew up hearing it and being a part of it.

In a very real sense, many Christians see it as a temporary home and the basis for that conclusion is the Bible. Adam was created and given dominion over the planet. It will be destroyed by God before he makes a shiny new Earth without pollution. Plus, a lower population once he casts doubters into the fire.

To quote pastors and radio hosts I listened to as a child: "The Earth is as close to Hell as Christians will get". It's trash to them, and the Bible is clear that the Earth is not that old and is not meant to last. Of course those beliefs lead to the political idiocy and environmental inaction and the laziness that we see in America's current government.

Yes, it's true that not all Christians care as little about the world as American/Republican/Evangelicals. Those are not the majority of Christians who speak up and proclaim their religious bona fides, or vote, or run for office where I live. And I completely understand how their holy text leads them to the absurd and harmful conclusions they hold. Unlike me and other non-religious folk, they need not concern themselves with ensuring that the world lasts for more than 100 years.

Too much time is spent criticizing elements of the left, when the right actually holds power and is actually doing harm that will obviously make people angry because they are worse off. We're nitpicking the folks who are human but are largely on the right path, and it gives comfort to the moronic and dangerous elements of the right.